I think that these town halls are serving as a warning to many house democrats - especially the blue dogs. If they vote for a public option/universal healthcare/single-payer government run deal, there is going to be a gigantic reckoning that will cost democrats the house and add 6 senate seats for the republicans. However, if the healthcare bill passes without the public option and many of the more problematic aspects in the house bill - several of them are going to be saved.

Why would people vote against the Blue Dogs for voting for a bill with a provision (the public option) that enjoys widespread public support? "You passed something I like, I'm going to vote against you!" That's now how the world works.

I think that these town halls are serving as a warning to many house democrats - especially the blue dogs. If they vote for a public option/universal healthcare/single-payer government run deal, there is going to be a gigantic reckoning that will cost democrats the house and add 6 senate seats for the republicans. However, if the healthcare bill passes without the public option and many of the more problematic aspects in the house bill - several of them are going to be saved.

Realistically, and republicans have to be honest about this...there are going to be some seats and areas that are going to be voting democrat for awhile. Some of these seats are not republican territory any longer - likewise, democrats will wake up one day to find several seats they thought to be safe (and when i make this argument, i refer to people waving the PVI percentages around) in republican hands for a very long time.

Though, as a personal note - two of three AZ dem house seats could get knocked off next round (Gabi "Nancy's Little Helper" Giffords and Harry Mitchell) and if they win, will probably not last beyond 2012. Kirkpatrick will be the most difficult of the three to get rid of I think.

Giffords is not going to be knocked off. She doesnt have a credible opponent and Republicans are not even targeting her.

I think that these town halls are serving as a warning to many house democrats - especially the blue dogs. If they vote for a public option/universal healthcare/single-payer government run deal, there is going to be a gigantic reckoning that will cost democrats the house and add 6 senate seats for the republicans. However, if the healthcare bill passes without the public option and many of the more problematic aspects in the house bill - several of them are going to be saved.

Why would people vote against the Blue Dogs for voting for a bill with a provision (the public option) that enjoys widespread public support? "You passed something I like, I'm going to vote against you!" That's now how the world works.

Yes, the public option, the public option enjoys widespread public support if you live in England and Canada - a majority (58%) of our own voters do not support it here. And yes, if this gets passed it will cost the dems the house.

I think that these town halls are serving as a warning to many house democrats - especially the blue dogs. If they vote for a public option/universal healthcare/single-payer government run deal, there is going to be a gigantic reckoning that will cost democrats the house and add 6 senate seats for the republicans. However, if the healthcare bill passes without the public option and many of the more problematic aspects in the house bill - several of them are going to be saved.

Why would people vote against the Blue Dogs for voting for a bill with a provision (the public option) that enjoys widespread public support? "You passed something I like, I'm going to vote against you!" That's now how the world works.

Yes, the public option, the public option enjoys widespread public support if you live in England and Canada - a majority (58%) of our own voters do not support it here. And yes, if this gets passed it will cost the dems the house.

The Dems are not going to lose the House in 2010 or likely 2012 either. Our first chance comes really in 2014 and it relies on us nominating people who can win in reality, not win in your little pipe dream fanasty.

Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!

I think that these town halls are serving as a warning to many house democrats - especially the blue dogs. If they vote for a public option/universal healthcare/single-payer government run deal, there is going to be a gigantic reckoning that will cost democrats the house and add 6 senate seats for the republicans. However, if the healthcare bill passes without the public option and many of the more problematic aspects in the house bill - several of them are going to be saved.

Why would people vote against the Blue Dogs for voting for a bill with a provision (the public option) that enjoys widespread public support? "You passed something I like, I'm going to vote against you!" That's now how the world works.

Yes, the public option, the public option enjoys widespread public support if you live in England and Canada - a majority (58%) of our own voters do not support it here. And yes, if this gets passed it will cost the dems the house.

The Dems are not going to lose the House in 2010 or likely 2012 either. Our first chance comes really in 2014 and it relies on us nominating people who can win in reality, not win in your little pipe dream fanasty.

Why do you say it will take till 2014 and that it is a little pipe dream fantasy? Look I'll agree that it will be likely really tough to win back the house, but my point is that this healthcare plan is so bad that its going to send alot of dems packing - you can see it on the ground, and now Obama wants to follow the healthcare stuff up with amnesty? It's not a winning combo and could sour a lot of people. A lot of the reasons why republicans lost congress had to do with the support of amnesty and the medicare provision Bush tried to pass. I'm typically a devil's advocate too like you seem to be, but the tea leaves are looking good.

And to the individual who wrote that I'm watching too much Fox - Rasmussen shows 57% against (some 70% against single payer I think), Gallup shows 53% against, and I think Pew does too. I do watch Fox, but I also watch CNN as well, and keep up on nearly everything in the political spectrum. Any way you try the spin this, the ground stuff going on and the polls do not bear your argument out.

I was making the point that the public option, the thing that supposedly is widely hated by Americans is unpopular. It's not. At all. The Democratic health care bill (which doesn't even exist) is somewhat unpopular at the moment, but that's because 1) It doesn't exist, so it can't really be defined positively and 2) A lot of Republican scaremongering has been going on and the Democrats have only begun to refute it.

Also, if you think that "amnesty" (again, please use big people words instead of Fox/Limbaugh buzz words) is going to lose Democrats votes, obviously you weren't paying attention in 2006 or 2008. Immigration reform will help Democrats: Republicans have never won elections running on the issue, as it does not carry the same sort of weight as abortion or gay marriage or something AND the debate will give the Republicans another chance to alienate Hispanics.

I was making the point that the public option, the thing that supposedly is widely hated by Americans is unpopular. It's not. At all. The Democratic health care bill (which doesn't even exist) is somewhat unpopular at the moment, but that's because 1) It doesn't exist, so it can't really be defined positively and 2) A lot of Republican scaremongering has been going on and the Democrats have only begun to refute it.

Also, if you think that "amnesty" (again, please use big people words instead of Fox/Limbaugh buzz words) is going to lose Democrats votes, obviously you weren't paying attention in 2006 or 2008. Immigration reform will help Democrats: Republicans have never won elections running on the issue, as it does not carry the same sort of weight as abortion or gay marriage or something AND the debate will give the Republicans another chance to alienate Hispanics.

Where is the proof that the public option is so popular with the people? I see old ladies and old men reading the massive bill when their representative has not and shouting them down. I see polls saying its not popular. As for the actual bill it's: H.R.3200, one thousand and one hundred pages long and you can read it on OpenCongress. There is no scaremongering that exists, and what does exist consists of Pelosi confusing LaRouche supporters dressed as Nazis with conservatives - the bill is bad. Page 59 gives the government direct access to individual bank accounts. That's only one example of the invasions of privacy held within. No it has not passed yet, there is no bill "in effect", but there is a bill.

Ok, big people words: Illegal aliens that have traversed the line separating the boundaries between the Mexican territory and the United States territory will receive full lenience (might have spelled that last word wrong) in accordance with the laws outlawing undocumented border crossing. - Amnesty is easier to say. If amnesty was such a proven vote winner, then why did John McCain do so terrible amongst latinos? Additionally, support for amnesty causes the base to drift away from individuals in the republican party and the party needs the base. I don't think a republican should ever run on the issue. There's more important fish to fry than worrying about who's scurrying over the border at a given moment.

I don't care about those Alabama districts. The 'Democrats' who win there are Republicans, most of the time. Fools like Bobby Bright.

I agree. There are a lot of 'Democrats' that really don't make a difference. I rather have a chance to get some better ones in places like PA-6, NJ-7, DE-AL, or IL-10 which are more likely to elect Dems I like.

I don't care about those Alabama districts. The 'Democrats' who win there are Republicans, most of the time. Fools like Bobby Bright.

Some of these democrats are socially moderates, but support dems on most issues (Mike Michaud,Patrick Murphy,Jason Altmire,Mike Arcuri,John Salazar,Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin)). Some are southern democrats who represent conservative districts (Gene Taylor, Dan Boren, Jim Marshall, Charlie Melancon) and some have been elected in 08' and 06' in conservative and GOP leaning districts and have to go to the right on some issues to keep their jobs (Bobby Bright, Brad Ellsworth, Kathy Dahlkemper, Heath Schuler, Gabrielle Giffords, Chris Carney, Frank Kravitol, Walt Minnick). This is why many moderate dems shifted on the climate bill. In the house you only need a majority to pass legislation, so Pelosi was able to let 44 democrats vote with the GOP on this bill and still get it to pass with a majority, and these 44 congressman don't have to worry about explaining their vote to their angry conservative constituents.

Pelosi was able to let 44 democrats vote with the GOP on this bill and still get it to pass with a majority, and these 44 congressman don't have to worry about explaining their vote to their angry conservative constituents.

Exactly. If we don't need their votes, why should we make them take the risk? If we need their votes, we'll have them; there's no point in antagonizing their constituents unnecessarily, especially if they're only in their first or second terms.

I don't care about those Alabama districts. The 'Democrats' who win there are Republicans, most of the time. Fools like Bobby Bright.

Bright's voting record hasn't been all that bad, actually.

He has basically been another Gene Taylor. Considering the district he is from, he needs to be.

For what it's worth, there are more than a few people here in MS-4 who think Taylor isn't exactly a slam dunk this year. I do know for a fact that the Republican party is putting more effort than normal into that race.